Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.3 Revocation of Acceptance Roy E. Farrar Produce Company (Farrar) was a packer and shipper of tomatoes in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. Farrar contacted Wilson, an agent and salesman for International Paper Company (International), and ordered 21,500 tomato boxes for $.64 per box. The boxes were to each hold between 20 and 30 pounds of tomatoes for shipping. When the boxes arrived at Farrar's plant, 3,624 of them were immediately used to pack tomatoes. When the boxes were stacked, they began to collapse and crush the tomatoes contained within them. The produce company was forced to repackage the tomatoes and store the unused tomato boxes. Farrar contacted International and informed it that it no longer wanted the boxes because they could not perform as promised. International claimed that Farrar had accepted the packages and must pay for them. Who wins?International Paper Co. v. Farrar, 700 P.2d 642 (N.M. 1985). Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.5 Right to Reclaim Goods Archer Daniels Midland Company (Archer) sold ethanol for use in gasoline. Archer sold 80,000 gallons of ethanol on credit to Charter International Oil Company (Charter). The ethanol was shipped to Charter's facility in Houston. Charter became insolvent sometime during that period. Archer sent a written notice to Charter, demanding the return of the ethanol. At the time Charter received the reclamation demand, it had only 12,000 gallons of ethanol remaining at its Houston facility. When Charter refused to return the unused ethanol, Archer sued to recover the ethanol. Who wins? Archer Daniels Midland v. Charter Int'l Oil Co., 60 B.R. 854 (M.D. Fla. 1986). Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.7 Right to Recover Purchase Price C. R. Daniels, Inc. (Daniels), entered into a contract for the design and sale of grass catcher bags for lawn mowers to Yazoo Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Yazoo). Daniels contracted to design grass catcher bags that would fit the "S" series mower made by Yazoo. Yazoo provided Daniels with a lawn mower to design the bag. After Yazoo approved the design of the bags, it issued a purchase order for 20,000 bags. Daniels began to ship the bags. After accepting 8,000 bags, Yazoo requested that the shipments stop. Officials of Yazoo told Daniels it would resume accepting shipments in a few months. Despite several attempts, Daniels could not get Yazoo to accept delivery of the remaining 12,000 bags. Daniels sued Yazoo to recover the purchase price of the grass bags still in its inventory. Who wins? C.R. Daniels, Inc. v. Yazoo Mfg. Co., 641 F. Supp. 205 (S.D. Miss. 1986). Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.8 Right to Recover Lost Profits Saber Energy, Inc. (Saber), entered into a sales contract with Tri-State Petroleum Corporation (Tri-State). The contract called for Saber to sell Tri State 110,000 barrels of gasoline per month for six months. Saber was to deliver the gasoline through the Colonial pipeline in Pasadena, Texas. The first 110,000 barrels were delivered on time. On August 1, Saber was informed that Tri-State was canceling the contract. Saber sued Tri-State for breach of contract and sought to recover its lost profits as damages. Tri State admitted its breach but claimed that lost profits is an inappropriate measure of damages. Who wins? Tri-State Petroleum Corp. v. Saber Energy, Inc., 845 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1988). Critical Legal Thinking Case 12.9 Right to Cover Kent Nowlin Construction, Inc. (Nowlin) was awarded a contract by the state of New Mexico to pave a number of roads. After Nowlin was awarded the contract, it entered into an agreement with Concrete Sales & Equipment Rental Company, Inc. (C & E). C&E was to supply 20,000 tons of paving material to Nowlin. Nowlin began paving the roads, anticipating C&E's delivery of materials. On the delivery date, however, C&E shipped only 2,099 tons of paving materials. Because Nowlin had a deadline to meet, the company contracted with Gallup Sand and Gravel Company (Gallup) for substitute material. Nowlin sued C&E to recover the difference between the higher price it had to pay Gallup for materials and the contract price C&E had agreed to. C&E claims it is not responsible for Nowlin's increased costs. Who wins? Concrete Sales & Equip. Rental Co. v. Kent Nowlin Constr., Inc., 746 P.2d 645 (N.M. 1987).

• What case did you choose and what were the relevant facts of the case?
• In your selected case, who wins?
• Was there a breach of contract? If so, what was it?
• Explain your rationale regarding who won the case.